[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I have absolutely no idea wtf you are ranting about.

Really? You honestly have no idea what I was referring to? My so-called “rant” is in response to your statement that the NFL rules are set up specifically stop teams from long term dominance, ranging “from free agency, to the salary cap, to the draft, to even the small variation in scheduling”, and that it's a “fool’s errand’ to try to resist these forces. And please don’t try to tell me you were only talking about the draft, because that just wouldn’t make any sense from the language you used.

While I’d agree that the purpose behind some parts of the rules you’ve referred is just as you say it is (to encourage competitiveness), it’s absurd to suggest that you can’t (or shouldn’t try to) beat those rules by innovating around them.

Originally Posted by rm1369

My argument has been Ballard’s approach was a 3-4 yr rebuild until they were pushing for a title and I didn’t (still don’t) believe that time line is necessary with a franchise QB, loads of cap space, and the #3 pick in the draft. I typed more but deleted it. Post is to long.

As far as the OL and DBs, I didn’t complain about the OL going into last year. I didn’t like the value of Nelson at 6 but I never said the line wouldn’t be improved/ good. I was not impressed with the roster at LB, DB, WR, or DL last year. Considering the moves this offseason it seems Ballard wasn’t that impressed either. And yes I still believe the DL would be in better shape with Haskins.

Whatever dude. I’ll take you at your word. And if you’re implying that my posts are too long (and I assume you are), then I’d invite you please stop reading them.

Originally Posted by rm1369

I grasp them and I have no issue with their use as part of a larger scheme. I have an issue with their use as THE underlying principle driving team building. To my knowledge Moneyball has provided a better return on investment as far as wins goes, but it has not won a title. And the big exception I take to your BS “that’s what the casino industry is built on” comment is that you state it as if NFL roster building has the same defined, unbreakable statistics behind it that the casino industry does. They don’t. Not even fucking close.

And enough with the moving target stuff. You and that Chromeburn dude are the same – I answer your argument, and then you act indignant and pretend that your argument was something else all along. To recap: You criticized my analogy to the casino industry since it apparently confused you, so I spoon fed it to you so you would understand better, and now you say that you really understood it the whole time and that your problem is with the application of those principles in the NFL. You also injected Moneyball into the discussion.

As to this latter issue, you are looking at the “Moneyball” example far too narrowly. While it’s true the A’s didn’t win the World Series, you ignore the more important and far more telling fact that now virtually every team has adjusted its practices in response and adopted some form of increased statistical analysis to try and take away/reduce the edge the A’s had identified and exploited. That’s all the proof you need.

Originally Posted by rm1369

I don’t think you read what you respond to. I think you are so quick to get your reply out you take no time to comprehend what anyone is saying.

A long term winner? Yes I believe Ballard will build it. I’ve said that multiple times over the last 2 years. And in the answer you replied to I referenced the Polian Colts as being what I believe the best case scenario is. I’d say that’s a long term winner and achievable. It’s the dynasty part of your rants that I believe is not achievable. At least not in the way you suggest it.

Oh, I get it now. I must have misread your original post. So you’re saying the rules you’ve referred to are set up to allow a team to enjoy a long period of winning like the Manning-led Colts, but to discourage multiple Super Bowl dynasties? Wait a minute...how exactly do all these rules you’re referring to encourage one, but prevent the other again?

The Manning-led Colts could (and perhaps should) have have won multiple Super Bowls – it wasn’t the salary cap that prevented them from doing so.

Originally Posted by rm1369

I’m not really sure how hoarding $50m+ in cap space is exploiting other teams weaknesses. I’ll take your word for it though. I do know what it looks like to see an opponent exploit the Colts weaknesses on the field. I just hope the Colts cap-space exploitation generates more points in the playoffs than their opponents on the field exploitation.

Now it’s my turn – WTF are you talking about here? I’m talking about inefficiencies in the system and rules, not on field weaknesses. Perhaps you are so quick to get your reply out you take no time to comprehend what anyone is saying. Either that, or you’re just being a garden variety asshole.